The author mainly discusses around defining the documentary film, stating that if defining what a documentary is, firstly we should give the specific feathers that a documentary should have. He disagrees the idea that documentary merely records and just presents the reality objectively in a politics and ethnics way. Similarly, showing some moral views and enlightening our daily life are not key points to define documentary; fiction film also enlightens moral views in our life. In this article, Juel contends that documentary is not recorded naturally and unprepared, and they are edited with purpose and constructed well before shooting. The point impresses me most is that Juel totally disagrees that the definition of documentary is "representation of reality", and I strongly agree with Juel. As I mentioned above, documentary is edited and prepared and filmmakers will add music, subtitles in the film. For example, the documentary Supersize me, in the movie, Morgan add cartoons to show how does the chicken produced and use a map to present there are thousands of McDonalds over the United States and how popular McDonalds is. From Juel’s article, I know the original meaning of Documentary means teaching and instructing in history, which adds to my view upon documentary. Most people solely think documentary records the truth from an objective perspective and its meaning is broadening audience’s view while Juel points out the one essential point, teach and instruct. In this sense, I reconsider the instructive and educational meaning of the documentary Supersize me. Obviously, Morgan tells us how fast food exerts negative impact on our health in a shocking way. On the other hand, Morgan instructs us to reexamine the social problems during the interviews and investigation. For instance, kids didn’t know Jesus and Bush but they recognize McDonalds at once. From this scene, the filmmaker not only showing how McDonalds rooted in Americans’ brains but triggering social problem as well. Therefore, I further understand the definition of documentary.
After reading Defining Documentary Film, by Henrik Juel, I quickly realized just how controversial and inadequate the actual definition for a "Documentary" really was. I suppose my definition prior to this article would be very similar to the students of Juel's class. I would include that it must be something real, or persuading you to believe to be real. It may also be something that is even debated amongst people such as a documentary like Supersize Me. Yes Morgan can give facts regarding his decrease in health, but it still leaves questions unanswered. One example of these questions including, "how bad will McDonalds affect me if I only eat it once a week?" In other words, Documentaries today do not need to be 100 percent factual. It would be very difficult to know if every little detail and stated "fact" in a documentary was indeed a fact. I am sure there are many so called "documentaries" that are not composed of solely true facts, but we still consider them to be. Although a clear definition of a documentary has not yet been defined in this article, Juel's list for the criterion a documentary should include seems extremely accurate. As I read through the list, specific examples of documentaries I have seen over the years have come to mind in ways that coincide with Juel's criterion. I do not believe this list was made to limit, nor was it made to include every criterion mentioned in order for a film to be called a documentary. For example, a documentary such as Planet Earth clearly differs from a documentary such as Supersize Me, but nonetheless, they are still documentaries.
Eric Lada The author is mainly talking about the basic idea of a documentary. It starts off with a question of what it a documentary and the basic answers that students usually give. What I got of the paper was to understand what a documentary is to look at it very simply. What are the basic requirements for a documentary? The only things I could think of were facts and some way of showing them. And it is covered in the paper and it even says that the word documentary comes from the Latin word meaning to teach or instruct. These two basic requirements are clearly in “Supersize Me”. The movie was just filled with facts with them being presented mostly through the words of the main character and numbers/figures. What most of the rest of the paper covered how the information was presented and I felt what they were describing was the movie aspect of the documentary. The main goal of the documentary is to inform but if it is not done in an exciting or entertaining way then no one will watch it. This is where I believe that this is just purely movie “magic” and has nothing to do with the actual documentary’s meaning or purpose. And this also brings up the question about how the facts are presented and if all of them are. The facts can easily, and probably are presented in a biased, one-sided way to get the viewer to agree with the maker of the film. And it probably leaves out facts against their view as well. This is very clear in “Supersize Me” when no facts about McDonald’s good deeds were presented in the film or how few salads he ate. This has nothing to do with the documentary but with the person behind making it and the purpose of them doing so. The main purpose of a documentary is to gather information about a subject and present it in a clear, easy to understand way; in what manner or how much of that information is present is all on the people making the documentary.
The Author of "Defining a Documentary", Henrik Juel, is trying to get people to think about what a documentary really is. There a many components to a documentary and a lot of thinking that needs to be put into place in order for the film to be a success. Many of the aspects that Juel mentioned were present in the film "Supersize Me". In "Supersize Me," Morgan was trying to get Americans to take a better look at the way and things we are eating and how they are affecting our bodies. This concept held and importance because he was trying to better our country by making Americans healthier and more conscious of what they are putting into their bodies. One part of Juel's article stuck out as a components of Morgans work. Juel stated that "The film may be striving for 'truth'... true emotions and perhaps to illustrate some more general truths about human life." By involving children in the film, Morgan attracted the attention of a larger audience. One part that “Supersize Me” may have been lacking was the ethics part. While I'm sure that all of the information Morgan presented was truthful, it was all one sided. Had he included McDonald's side of the story he would have allowed the audience to make a decision for themselves rather than force them to see things his way.
After reading Defining Documentary Film by Henrik Jule, my own understanding of what a documentary film is has deepened. Jule creates within his writing a list of possible functions of documentaries, and the narrative strategies used to accomplish them. Before reading his article, I would have defined a documentary as a non-fiction film that expressed the creator’s opinion or perspective on something. While this definition fits into Jule’s list, there is a lot more involved in what a documentary is. A documentary can be observational, interactive, or even a performance of the film crew’s creation. It is important that facts or some sort of truth is present in a documentary, although what qualifies as such can be one of many things. For example, truth could be an emotion or statement about humanity as much as literal or statistical facts. The documentary we watched for class, Supersize Me, is a good example of what a documentary can be. Morgan Spurlock created a film saturated with facts and statistics in hopes of changing the viewer’s actions. Specifically, Spurlock wanted to make people aware of how unhealthy fast food is, and to dissuade people from buying it. He makes it emotionally gripping, because he undergoes a 30-day McDonalds diet himself, and shows how drastically his health decreased. This tactic of involving the creator of the film in the film itself shows his seriousness about the message presented. Also in Jule’s article, I found it interesting that creativity and post-production editing of a film was up for debate in the creation of a documentary. Jule spends a considerable amount of his article explaining how a documentary involves creativity, editing, and selective presentation of film to the viewers. This may be because I have seen several documentaries myself and would be surprised if someone sought to create a professional documentary and did not make use of these processes. The choice of what is included in a documentary is central to the message it is trying to communicate. If Spurlock had not spent time editing his documentary Supersize Me, it would not be nearly as effective in relaying his message to an audience. If no editing were involved, if it were not a creation and simply an observation, it would not be a documentary at all. In regard to his list of things qualifying a film as documentary, Jule states that “No single criterion seems to qualify or disqualify a given film.” He is open to interpretation and debate as to what makes a film a documentary, and what a documentary includes. Because of this broad definition of documentary film, as viewers and analysts we should seek to interpret what is expressed and how, realizing everything included was a choice among many possibilities.
One point he made about the classification of documentaries is the different film or directing techniques that may or may not be used. He said that often, when people try to describe what a ‘documentary’ is, they list off many elements that can also be found in fictional or ‘non-documentary’ films. Examples of this are the fancy cuts, the use of actors, special camera angles/shots etc… Many of these elements are used in Supersize Me, but it is still considered a documentary. So what about it fits Juel’s description of a documentary? He says that documentaries and fiction works can contain many similar aspects, and that they’re similarities aren’t limited to only the camera techniques but also in that they both may portray truth. However, the primary difference from, what I gather, in a fiction film from a non-fiction one, is that ‘lies’ may be told in fiction films, whereas they may not be in documentary films. Supersize Me fits these criteria, as it does use different video effects and tells no lies. Most of what is said in the video is based on fact. Apart from that, it gives opinions of the documenter, as well as some personal accounts and opinions about McDonalds. Supersize Me is entertaining. What separates it from fictional films, I believe, is that the footage and content shown, represents things/people that are real, and not in a fictional context. It shows the director’s opinion, and provides facts to support it. It isn’t simply a camera placed in front of something and capturing whatever passes by. This documentary likely started with a concept, was developed, and then the camera and editing etc, were all used to help portray this concept.
In Jule he describes what he defines a documentary as and how he thought his students what a true and effective documentary is. In the article he listed things to look for in a film to help determine if the film was a real documentary. I think that Jule is right because a lot of people don’t really know what a documentary is. When we were asked what a documentary was on the first day of class a proper response couldn’t be given, and that’s because most of us are unsure of what it is. After going through Jules tactics Supersize me is a documentary for a few different reasons. To start off Morgan gave facts in supersize me that were aimed in the direction of his argument but he never showed the positive side and attempted to get facts for the final results of his argument. Since we only saw the outcome and he proved his point that McDonalds and fast food in general is unhealthy, he didn’t show points on why people choose fast food. Morgan left points he brought up in his film unanswered. I think that Supersize me fits Jule’s description of a documentary in a few ways. However Super size me does not fit all of Jule’s tactics. Morgan proved his point and showed how effective fast food is and how quickly it can harm you. Along with Morgan leaving a few questions unanswered, in my opinion he managed to make a very effective documentary.
There are many different aspects of documentaries, which Henrik Juel covers extensively in his Defining Documentary Film. While it is hard to come up with an exact definition of a documentary, there are certain aspects which all documentaries share. Juel makes many points which apply to the documentary Super Size me. An important point which Juel made applying to Super Size me was that he said one of the important aspects of a documentary is that it is performative. In Super Size me, Morgan create the events and situations to prove a point and for the sake of the film. He is purposely eating McDonald's every day and capturing it on film to prove a point and provide an premise for the documentary. Another aspect mentioned in the reading which applies to Super Size me is that documentary film making is all about ethics, politics, and an aesthetic approach. Morgan's film was very political and touched a lot on the ethics of both the fast food companies and the American citizens consuming the fast food. He also an aesthetic, albeit disgusting, approach to get his point across about the quality of McDonald's food and what it can do the human body. Documentary is not an easily defined term. There are a lot of different documentaries touching on a lot of different topics. There are certain similarities between all these films, but it cannot be so easily defined as to say that they all "capture reality." Super Size me is clearly a documentary and contains many documentarian aspects. Juel makes many points in his Defining Documentary that apply to Super Size me, and does a good job of compiling a list of the essentials that all documentaries share.
Jule’s article discusses that a documentary is film that is edited and presented to make present conditions are wrong. This applies to supersize me because Morgan Spurlock used that tactic to convince his viewers that McDonalds was wrong. Spurlock showed only what is wrong with McDonalds and none of the things that McDonalds does that is good for the community surrounding the restaurant. Spurlock only presented the bad things that McDonalds such as their food being unhealthy but there are charities that McDonalds pays into that wasn't mentioned as something good McDonalds does for other people. Supersize Me did a good job in portraying McDonalds how they wanted it to be seen just like some documentaries do when they want to prove a point.
In "Defining a Documentary," Henrik Juel lists several different ways to make sure that a film is actually a documentary. One way that is used in "Supersize Me" is using truth and creativity. Being creative when striving for the "truth" and using lies and many fictitious events to enhance that truth, however, would turn the film into a work of fiction. In order for a film to be a documentary, the truth needs to be given, and if it is done in a creative manner, it will be much more interesting to the audience, and more successful in getting the filmmaker's point across. Morgan Spurlock uses cartoons in many parts of the film, in an attempt to make certain facts stick in your mind. I believe that using such creative methods when presenting the truth is in fact a very effective method for filmmakers planning on making a documentary.
Jule explains in detail why the word “documentary” will always have a question mark behind its definition. There was an attempt to define the word but it seemed as something always came into mind that would go against a definition. Basically what Jule was trying to say is that every definition is right in some way but never clear cut enough to classify a specific definition. Jule explains the reality that a document should include but not how reality should be depicted. He gives examples of films such as “pirates of the Caribbean” in contrast to just cameras in a local business. The overall definition of “documentary” is just a big circle which I would describe as a slippery slope term. My definition of a Documentary is that it explained or is explaining a general topic that is real or persuasive to the general community in the form of visual facts. This might be a broad definition compared to what Jule explained but then again I can say that it is not wrong. When it comes to the documentary Super size me, Morgan Spurlock demonstrated every aspect of Jule’s guidelines of a documentary in some way. Truth and creativity was the most important aspect that Morgan demonstrated because he had many animations that were true in many ways. He also had a positive approach toward fixing the problem. Some parts of Jules explanation that were met but not as well were the fact that every documentary should focus on the target group. Morgan demonstrates this well but only to the overweight group. He did not explain in detail that not only overweight people should be concerned but also people who are the correct weight so that they do not become overweight. The overall view of Jule’s concept and Morgan’s claim is that a documentary is more then its definition.
David Fickel For this comment, we had to read a paper written on what the definition of a documentary was and the writer’s attempt to give the guidelines that they felt outlined this subject. To start with, I felt that a documentary was a film or video presentation that tried to convey a certain point of view or even change opinions about a subject, which in supersizes case was to convince people McDonalds was very bad for you. I think Jule presented a very good overview of what and wasn’t, in her mind, a documentary. The point that she made to her class about the surveillance man was a great way to get her point across with a real world experience. Just because you have a video camera and can record something doesn’t mean you are presenting any point that will raise any questions or evoke any thinking. The film was defiantly a participatory one, and by this I mean the crew or film maker gets into the making or is the central character. It also fit the performance criteria I felt since the crew had to make this show happen or nothing would have happened. The question that kept going through my mind as I was reading was basically a summary of the points the author used. Unless a certain film can convey a message or information pertaining to an issue using correct facts, then it isn’t a documentary. It needs to stir up some controversy I feel and make you think about the problem or issue being presented. If your mind doesn’t turn then what is the point of even watching a film like that. Nothing really was too outlandish I thought in this paper, and I tended to agree with the author on most all points. Some will argue with the author but in the end this is a great way to discern the difference on films.
Chris Miller Henrick Juel does an excellent job of making you think about documentaries. The way she includes interesting ideas makes the reader think more in depth about the topic. In my opinion, I always thought of a documentary of facts including the source of where it’s from. In fiction, people may state facts, but you don’t know if they’re true or not because they do not give a source. I like how Juel says, “A film is not a mere representation, but a willed presentation of something made by someone in a specific way and for someone.” This can describe documentaries because they are made in a specific way, to persuade the viewer or open the observer up to different things in the world. In relating it to Supersize Me, I think many of the points listed apply to the documentary. I believe that Expository is shown in the film because Morgan is always lecturing to the viewer, and there are also points in the film when they have people and experts explaining different things. It is definitely performative, because Morgan really goes through with the experiment himself and you see every step and process in the experiment. Correspondence would be another great descriptive word because in the film a ton of facts are given with sources, or having the facts actually come from the facts themselves. All in all, Supersize Me has a ton of elements that link it to be a documentary, and I think that this is why it makes it such a well done film.
Jule writes that documentaries have implied target groups that they are meant to inform, and this is the point that is most relevant to the film “Supersize Me” by Morgan Spurlock. Spurlock’s target group was the American public, specifically parents and people who eat a typical American diet. The film is meant to open the eyes of these targets about the dangers of eating unhealthily over long periods of time. Spurlock does this primarily through his personal experiment on the physiological effects of eating McDonalds exclusively for 30 days. He also drives home his point through interviews with experts, and shares disturbing facts about the current American health situation. Jule also makes the point that the subject matter is a deciding factor in classifying films as documentaries. The subject of “Supersize Me”, health and its relationship to food, is a very important one in America today. Documentaries are successful when the address topics that are relevant to the society, and obesity is arguably one of the biggest problems facing our country. With this subject, Spurlock intended to change the way some people think about food, which is another point of Jule’s in defining a documentary. The facts and interviews presented are intended to shed some light on the real nutritional value of the American diet and the effects it can have on those who continue to maintain it. Overall, “Supersize Me” utilized most points Jule made about documentaries, which made it very effective and informative.
Grace Debbeler “A wish to make a difference, to change the world, or at least the way in which some relevant audience will look upon the world or themselves.” This quote from the article Defining Documentary Film, by Henrik Juel, clearly proves the drive behind a creating a documentary and relates well to the purpose of Supersize Me. Its clear that Morgan Spurlock’s purpose was to change the way that American’s look at the fast food industry, in particular McDonalds. This wasn’t done through just surveillance video from fast food places; there was a point to prove and this was conveyed through his 30 experiment and the facts he presented as further proof of his point. When I first think of documentaries I immediately think of persuasion. For some reason I assume that the artistic way in which the documentary is presented will change my opinion about something, good or bad. Even if the documentary is unable to change my point of view I do hope that a good documentary will spark my interest about the topic and bring the topic to a debate between the viewers. I feel that this type of film is different from fiction on the simple basis that fiction isn’t real. Fiction can spark your imagination in a million different ways but documentaries are real world situations that should have the opportunity to be discussed in an open environment.
Dominique Shepherd said.... Julie made many good points in her essay defining an essay and what all it entails. one of the most enlightening definitions that she provided was that it a documentary is a creative treatment of reality. Off course it is non-fiction but at the same time it has many similar components that can be found in a fiction film. In regards to how her essay relates to the film Supersize Me, there is a point she makes in here essay where she says;"A film is not a mere representation, but a willed presentation of something made by someone in a specific way and for someone." Morgan Spurlock made this film for the average American audience, and thus it had components and references that were easy for Americans to relate to and understand. The way he presented statistics and facts in cartoon images and child like animations reached was a tactic he used to reach the audience that he attended to reach. Julie also made a point that touched on how documentary makers have a issue that they are passionate about which they take and develop into a film that can express and enlighten others about the issue in a way that not only educates but entertains. In Supersize me Spurlock makes his position clear on how he feels about the fast food industry and the way in which he portrays them as a evil that is out of control. But at the same time he offer facts and professional opinions in a way that persuades people and open their eyes to the issue at hand. Even though the film has components of fiction is still is able to display the realistic truth of the food industry in the U.S.A
Henrik Juel's article evaluating the difinition of a documentary made some interesting points, and as I continued reading I realized that I myself did not fully understand what qualifies as a documentary. the prerequisites of a documentary film are optional and vague; there are no strict guidelines to follow. Many people have different perceptions of what a documentary is, so Juel established for us some characteristics that many documentaries have. After reading this article, I notice a great deal of these traits in the documentary Super Size Me.
My previous impression of a documentary was that it must present facts and remain unbias. Perhaps I was getting confused with a biography? What Juel stresses in his article is that there is a combination of "truth and creativity" within documentaries. The creator uses all factual information and documentation, molds it into a creative way so that it works to prove the point that this person is trying to get accross. This tactic is prevelent throughout Super Size Me. By focusing on the dangerous and unpleasant results of America's dependence on junk food and their lack of excercise, Morgan Spurlock intends to present fast food and all those involved in a negative light. He utilizes every fact and edited his film in order to emphasize his argument. Yes, he left out some information that would convince people otherwise. He did not say many positive things about McDonald's or their supporters, but if he had just plainly presented the facts of this subject it there would be some advantageous points. But this does not help his argument so he did not discuss those. John Grierson's idea of "creative treatment of actuality" is just one of the many ways that Morgan Spurlock tries to prove the point that America is trading comfort and convenience for health. The way he presents his belief makes it a documentary.
Qian Zhang
ReplyDeleteThe author mainly discusses around defining the documentary film, stating that if defining what a documentary is, firstly we should give the specific feathers that a documentary should have. He disagrees the idea that documentary merely records and just presents the reality objectively in a politics and ethnics way. Similarly, showing some moral views and enlightening our daily life are not key points to define documentary; fiction film also enlightens moral views in our life. In this article, Juel contends that documentary is not recorded naturally and unprepared, and they are edited with purpose and constructed well before shooting. The point impresses me most is that Juel totally disagrees that the definition of documentary is "representation of reality", and I strongly agree with Juel. As I mentioned above, documentary is edited and prepared and filmmakers will add music, subtitles in the film. For example, the documentary Supersize me, in the movie, Morgan add cartoons to show how does the chicken produced and use a map to present there are thousands of McDonalds over the United States and how popular McDonalds is. From Juel’s article, I know the original meaning of Documentary means teaching and instructing in history, which adds to my view upon documentary. Most people solely think documentary records the truth from an objective perspective and its meaning is broadening audience’s view while Juel points out the one essential point, teach and instruct. In this sense, I reconsider the instructive and educational meaning of the documentary Supersize me. Obviously, Morgan tells us how fast food exerts negative impact on our health in a shocking way. On the other hand, Morgan instructs us to reexamine the social problems during the interviews and investigation. For instance, kids didn’t know Jesus and Bush but they recognize McDonalds at once. From this scene, the filmmaker not only showing how McDonalds rooted in Americans’ brains but triggering social problem as well. Therefore, I further understand the definition of documentary.
After reading Defining Documentary Film, by Henrik Juel, I quickly realized just how controversial and inadequate the actual definition for a "Documentary" really was. I suppose my definition prior to this article would be very similar to the students of Juel's class. I would include that it must be something real, or persuading you to believe to be real. It may also be something that is even debated amongst people such as a documentary like Supersize Me. Yes Morgan can give facts regarding his decrease in health, but it still leaves questions unanswered. One example of these questions including, "how bad will McDonalds affect me if I only eat it once a week?" In other words, Documentaries today do not need to be 100 percent factual. It would be very difficult to know if every little detail and stated "fact" in a documentary was indeed a fact. I am sure there are many so called "documentaries" that are not composed of solely true facts, but we still consider them to be.
ReplyDeleteAlthough a clear definition of a documentary has not yet been defined in this article, Juel's list for the criterion a documentary should include seems extremely accurate. As I read through the list, specific examples of documentaries I have seen over the years have come to mind in ways that coincide with Juel's criterion. I do not believe this list was made to limit, nor was it made to include every criterion mentioned in order for a film to be called a documentary. For example, a documentary such as Planet Earth clearly differs from a documentary such as Supersize Me, but nonetheless, they are still documentaries.
Eric Lada
ReplyDeleteThe author is mainly talking about the basic idea of a documentary. It starts off with a question of what it a documentary and the basic answers that students usually give. What I got of the paper was to understand what a documentary is to look at it very simply. What are the basic requirements for a documentary? The only things I could think of were facts and some way of showing them. And it is covered in the paper and it even says that the word documentary comes from the Latin word meaning to teach or instruct. These two basic requirements are clearly in “Supersize Me”. The movie was just filled with facts with them being presented mostly through the words of the main character and numbers/figures. What most of the rest of the paper covered how the information was presented and I felt what they were describing was the movie aspect of the documentary. The main goal of the documentary is to inform but if it is not done in an exciting or entertaining way then no one will watch it. This is where I believe that this is just purely movie “magic” and has nothing to do with the actual documentary’s meaning or purpose. And this also brings up the question about how the facts are presented and if all of them are. The facts can easily, and probably are presented in a biased, one-sided way to get the viewer to agree with the maker of the film. And it probably leaves out facts against their view as well. This is very clear in “Supersize Me” when no facts about McDonald’s good deeds were presented in the film or how few salads he ate. This has nothing to do with the documentary but with the person behind making it and the purpose of them doing so. The main purpose of a documentary is to gather information about a subject and present it in a clear, easy to understand way; in what manner or how much of that information is present is all on the people making the documentary.
The Author of "Defining a Documentary", Henrik Juel, is trying to get people to think about what a documentary really is. There a many components to a documentary and a lot of thinking that needs to be put into place in order for the film to be a success. Many of the aspects that Juel mentioned were present in the film "Supersize Me". In "Supersize Me," Morgan was trying to get Americans to take a better look at the way and things we are eating and how they are affecting our bodies. This concept held and importance because he was trying to better our country by making Americans healthier and more conscious of what they are putting into their bodies. One part of Juel's article stuck out as a components of Morgans work. Juel stated that "The film may be striving for 'truth'... true emotions and perhaps to illustrate some more general truths about human life." By involving children in the film, Morgan attracted the attention of a larger audience. One part that “Supersize Me” may have been lacking was the ethics part. While I'm sure that all of the information Morgan presented was truthful, it was all one sided. Had he included McDonald's side of the story he would have allowed the audience to make a decision for themselves rather than force them to see things his way.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Defining Documentary Film by Henrik Jule, my own understanding of what a documentary film is has deepened. Jule creates within his writing a list of possible functions of documentaries, and the narrative strategies used to accomplish them. Before reading his article, I would have defined a documentary as a non-fiction film that expressed the creator’s opinion or perspective on something. While this definition fits into Jule’s list, there is a lot more involved in what a documentary is. A documentary can be observational, interactive, or even a performance of the film crew’s creation. It is important that facts or some sort of truth is present in a documentary, although what qualifies as such can be one of many things. For example, truth could be an emotion or statement about humanity as much as literal or statistical facts.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary we watched for class, Supersize Me, is a good example of what a documentary can be. Morgan Spurlock created a film saturated with facts and statistics in hopes of changing the viewer’s actions. Specifically, Spurlock wanted to make people aware of how unhealthy fast food is, and to dissuade people from buying it. He makes it emotionally gripping, because he undergoes a 30-day McDonalds diet himself, and shows how drastically his health decreased. This tactic of involving the creator of the film in the film itself shows his seriousness about the message presented.
Also in Jule’s article, I found it interesting that creativity and post-production editing of a film was up for debate in the creation of a documentary. Jule spends a considerable amount of his article explaining how a documentary involves creativity, editing, and selective presentation of film to the viewers. This may be because I have seen several documentaries myself and would be surprised if someone sought to create a professional documentary and did not make use of these processes. The choice of what is included in a documentary is central to the message it is trying to communicate. If Spurlock had not spent time editing his documentary Supersize Me, it would not be nearly as effective in relaying his message to an audience. If no editing were involved, if it were not a creation and simply an observation, it would not be a documentary at all.
In regard to his list of things qualifying a film as documentary, Jule states that “No single criterion seems to qualify or disqualify a given film.” He is open to interpretation and debate as to what makes a film a documentary, and what a documentary includes. Because of this broad definition of documentary film, as viewers and analysts we should seek to interpret what is expressed and how, realizing everything included was a choice among many possibilities.
Alex
ReplyDeleteOne point he made about the classification of documentaries is the different film or directing techniques that may or may not be used. He said that often, when people try to describe what a ‘documentary’ is, they list off many elements that can also be found in fictional or ‘non-documentary’ films. Examples of this are the fancy cuts, the use of actors, special camera angles/shots etc… Many of these elements are used in Supersize Me, but it is still considered a documentary. So what about it fits Juel’s description of a documentary?
He says that documentaries and fiction works can contain many similar aspects, and that they’re similarities aren’t limited to only the camera techniques but also in that they both may portray truth. However, the primary difference from, what I gather, in a fiction film from a non-fiction one, is that ‘lies’ may be told in fiction films, whereas they may not be in documentary films. Supersize Me fits these criteria, as it does use different video effects and tells no lies. Most of what is said in the video is based on fact. Apart from that, it gives opinions of the documenter, as well as some personal accounts and opinions about McDonalds. Supersize Me is entertaining. What separates it from fictional films, I believe, is that the footage and content shown, represents things/people that are real, and not in a fictional context. It shows the director’s opinion, and provides facts to support it. It isn’t simply a camera placed in front of something and capturing whatever passes by. This documentary likely started with a concept, was developed, and then the camera and editing etc, were all used to help portray this concept.
In Jule he describes what he defines a documentary as and how he thought his students what a true and effective documentary is. In the article he listed things to look for in a film to help determine if the film was a real documentary. I think that Jule is right because a lot of people don’t really know what a documentary is. When we were asked what a documentary was on the first day of class a proper response couldn’t be given, and that’s because most of us are unsure of what it is.
ReplyDeleteAfter going through Jules tactics Supersize me is a documentary for a few different reasons. To start off Morgan gave facts in supersize me that were aimed in the direction of his argument but he never showed the positive side and attempted to get facts for the final results of his argument. Since we only saw the outcome and he proved his point that McDonalds and fast food in general is unhealthy, he didn’t show points on why people choose fast food. Morgan left points he brought up in his film unanswered.
I think that Supersize me fits Jule’s description of a documentary in a few ways. However Super size me does not fit all of Jule’s tactics. Morgan proved his point and showed how effective fast food is and how quickly it can harm you. Along with Morgan leaving a few questions unanswered, in my opinion he managed to make a very effective documentary.
There are many different aspects of documentaries, which Henrik Juel covers extensively in his Defining Documentary Film. While it is hard to come up with an exact definition of a documentary, there are certain aspects which all documentaries share. Juel makes many points which apply to the documentary Super Size me. An important point which Juel made applying to Super Size me was that he said one of the important aspects of a documentary is that it is performative. In Super Size me, Morgan create the events and situations to prove a point and for the sake of the film. He is purposely eating McDonald's every day and capturing it on film to prove a point and provide an premise for the documentary. Another aspect mentioned in the reading which applies to Super Size me is that documentary film making is all about ethics, politics, and an aesthetic approach. Morgan's film was very political and touched a lot on the ethics of both the fast food companies and the American citizens consuming the fast food. He also an aesthetic, albeit disgusting, approach to get his point across about the quality of McDonald's food and what it can do the human body. Documentary is not an easily defined term. There are a lot of different documentaries touching on a lot of different topics. There are certain similarities between all these films, but it cannot be so easily defined as to say that they all "capture reality." Super Size me is clearly a documentary and contains many documentarian aspects. Juel makes many points in his Defining Documentary that apply to Super Size me, and does a good job of compiling a list of the essentials that all documentaries share.
ReplyDeleteJule’s article discusses that a documentary is film that is edited and presented to make present conditions are wrong. This applies to supersize me because Morgan Spurlock used that tactic to convince his viewers that McDonalds was wrong. Spurlock showed only what is wrong with McDonalds and none of the things that McDonalds does that is good for the community surrounding the restaurant. Spurlock only presented the bad things that McDonalds such as their food being unhealthy but there are charities that McDonalds pays into that wasn't mentioned as something good McDonalds does for other people. Supersize Me did a good job in portraying McDonalds how they wanted it to be seen just like some documentaries do when they want to prove a point.
ReplyDeleteIn "Defining a Documentary," Henrik Juel lists several different ways to make sure that a film is actually a documentary. One way that is used in "Supersize Me" is using truth and creativity. Being creative when striving for the "truth" and using lies and many fictitious events to enhance that truth, however, would turn the film into a work of fiction. In order for a film to be a documentary, the truth needs to be given, and if it is done in a creative manner, it will be much more interesting to the audience, and more successful in getting the filmmaker's point across. Morgan Spurlock uses cartoons in many parts of the film, in an attempt to make certain facts stick in your mind. I believe that using such creative methods when presenting the truth is in fact a very effective method for filmmakers planning on making a documentary.
ReplyDeleteBroderick Bonner
ReplyDeleteSuper size me & Jule
Jule explains in detail why the word “documentary” will always have a question mark behind its definition. There was an attempt to define the word but it seemed as something always came into mind that would go against a definition. Basically what Jule was trying to say is that every definition is right in some way but never clear cut enough to classify a specific definition. Jule explains the reality that a document should include but not how reality should be depicted. He gives examples of films such as “pirates of the Caribbean” in contrast to just cameras in a local business. The overall definition of “documentary” is just a big circle which I would describe as a slippery slope term.
My definition of a Documentary is that it explained or is explaining a general topic that is real or persuasive to the general community in the form of visual facts. This might be a broad definition compared to what Jule explained but then again I can say that it is not wrong. When it comes to the documentary Super size me, Morgan Spurlock demonstrated every aspect of Jule’s guidelines of a documentary in some way. Truth and creativity was the most important aspect that Morgan demonstrated because he had many animations that were true in many ways. He also had a positive approach toward fixing the problem. Some parts of Jules explanation that were met but not as well were the fact that every documentary should focus on the target group. Morgan demonstrates this well but only to the overweight group. He did not explain in detail that not only overweight people should be concerned but also people who are the correct weight so that they do not become overweight. The overall view of Jule’s concept and Morgan’s claim is that a documentary is more then its definition.
David Fickel
ReplyDeleteFor this comment, we had to read a paper written on what the definition of a documentary was and the writer’s attempt to give the guidelines that they felt outlined this subject. To start with, I felt that a documentary was a film or video presentation that tried to convey a certain point of view or even change opinions about a subject, which in supersizes case was to convince people McDonalds was very bad for you. I think Jule presented a very good overview of what and wasn’t, in her mind, a documentary. The point that she made to her class about the surveillance man was a great way to get her point across with a real world experience. Just because you have a video camera and can record something doesn’t mean you are presenting any point that will raise any questions or evoke any thinking. The film was defiantly a participatory one, and by this I mean the crew or film maker gets into the making or is the central character. It also fit the performance criteria I felt since the crew had to make this show happen or nothing would have happened. The question that kept going through my mind as I was reading was basically a summary of the points the author used. Unless a certain film can convey a message or information pertaining to an issue using correct facts, then it isn’t a documentary. It needs to stir up some controversy I feel and make you think about the problem or issue being presented. If your mind doesn’t turn then what is the point of even watching a film like that. Nothing really was too outlandish I thought in this paper, and I tended to agree with the author on most all points. Some will argue with the author but in the end this is a great way to discern the difference on films.
Chris Miller
ReplyDeleteHenrick Juel does an excellent job of making you think about documentaries. The way she includes interesting ideas makes the reader think more in depth about the topic. In my opinion, I always thought of a documentary of facts including the source of where it’s from. In fiction, people may state facts, but you don’t know if they’re true or not because they do not give a source. I like how Juel says, “A film is not a mere representation, but a willed presentation of something made by someone in a specific way and for someone.” This can describe documentaries because they are made in a specific way, to persuade the viewer or open the observer up to different things in the world.
In relating it to Supersize Me, I think many of the points listed apply to the documentary. I believe that Expository is shown in the film because Morgan is always lecturing to the viewer, and there are also points in the film when they have people and experts explaining different things. It is definitely performative, because Morgan really goes through with the experiment himself and you see every step and process in the experiment. Correspondence would be another great descriptive word because in the film a ton of facts are given with sources, or having the facts actually come from the facts themselves. All in all, Supersize Me has a ton of elements that link it to be a documentary, and I think that this is why it makes it such a well done film.
Jule writes that documentaries have implied target groups that they are meant to inform, and this is the point that is most relevant to the film “Supersize Me” by Morgan Spurlock. Spurlock’s target group was the American public, specifically parents and people who eat a typical American diet. The film is meant to open the eyes of these targets about the dangers of eating unhealthily over long periods of time. Spurlock does this primarily through his personal experiment on the physiological effects of eating McDonalds exclusively for 30 days. He also drives home his point through interviews with experts, and shares disturbing facts about the current American health situation. Jule also makes the point that the subject matter is a deciding factor in classifying films as documentaries. The subject of “Supersize Me”, health and its relationship to food, is a very important one in America today. Documentaries are successful when the address topics that are relevant to the society, and obesity is arguably one of the biggest problems facing our country. With this subject, Spurlock intended to change the way some people think about food, which is another point of Jule’s in defining a documentary. The facts and interviews presented are intended to shed some light on the real nutritional value of the American diet and the effects it can have on those who continue to maintain it. Overall, “Supersize Me” utilized most points Jule made about documentaries, which made it very effective and informative.
ReplyDeleteGrace Debbeler
ReplyDelete“A wish to make a difference, to change the world, or at least the way in which some relevant audience will look upon the world or themselves.” This quote from the article Defining Documentary Film, by Henrik Juel, clearly proves the drive behind a creating a documentary and relates well to the purpose of Supersize Me. Its clear that Morgan Spurlock’s purpose was to change the way that American’s look at the fast food industry, in particular McDonalds. This wasn’t done through just surveillance video from fast food places; there was a point to prove and this was conveyed through his 30 experiment and the facts he presented as further proof of his point. When I first think of documentaries I immediately think of persuasion. For some reason I assume that the artistic way in which the documentary is presented will change my opinion about something, good or bad. Even if the documentary is unable to change my point of view I do hope that a good documentary will spark my interest about the topic and bring the topic to a debate between the viewers. I feel that this type of film is different from fiction on the simple basis that fiction isn’t real. Fiction can spark your imagination in a million different ways but documentaries are real world situations that should have the opportunity to be discussed in an open environment.
Dominique Shepherd said....
ReplyDeleteJulie made many good points in her essay defining an essay and what all it entails. one of the most enlightening definitions that she provided was that it a documentary is a creative treatment of reality. Off course it is non-fiction but at the same time it has many similar components that can be found in a fiction film.
In regards to how her essay relates to the film Supersize Me, there is a point she makes in here essay where she says;"A film is not a mere representation, but a willed presentation of something made by someone in a specific way and for someone." Morgan Spurlock made this film for the average American audience, and thus it had components and references that were easy for Americans to relate to and understand. The way he presented statistics and facts in cartoon images and child like animations reached was a tactic he used to reach the audience that he attended to reach.
Julie also made a point that touched on how documentary makers have a issue that they are passionate about which they take and develop into a film that can express and enlighten others about the issue in a way that not only educates but entertains. In Supersize me Spurlock makes his position clear on how he feels about the fast food industry and the way in which he portrays them as a evil that is out of control. But at the same time he offer facts and professional opinions in a way that persuades people and open their eyes to the issue at hand. Even though the film has components of fiction is still is able to display the realistic truth of the food industry in the U.S.A
Henrik Juel's article evaluating the difinition of a documentary made some interesting points, and as I continued reading I realized that I myself did not fully understand what qualifies as a documentary. the prerequisites of a documentary film are optional and vague; there are no strict guidelines to follow. Many people have different perceptions of what a documentary is, so Juel established for us some characteristics that many documentaries have. After reading this article, I notice a great deal of these traits in the documentary Super Size Me.
ReplyDeleteMy previous impression of a documentary was that it must present facts and remain unbias. Perhaps I was getting confused with a biography? What Juel stresses in his article is that there is a combination of "truth and creativity" within documentaries. The creator uses all factual information and documentation, molds it into a creative way so that it works to prove the point that this person is trying to get accross. This tactic is prevelent throughout Super Size Me. By focusing on the dangerous and unpleasant results of America's dependence on junk food and their lack of excercise, Morgan Spurlock intends to present fast food and all those involved in a negative light. He utilizes every fact and edited his film in order to emphasize his argument. Yes, he left out some information that would convince people otherwise. He did not say many positive things about McDonald's or their supporters, but if he had just plainly presented the facts of this subject it there would be some advantageous points. But this does not help his argument so he did not discuss those. John Grierson's idea of "creative treatment of actuality" is just one of the many ways that Morgan Spurlock tries to prove the point that America is trading comfort and convenience for health. The way he presents his belief makes it a documentary.